User talk:Jhall1/archive Jul,09-Dec,12

Hello, John. 'Jack told me that you could be interested in this article. I've noticed that you've already discovered it. Do you have any idea how I can expand it? I'd like to deal with the end of the team and the attitude of the MCC towards All-England, but I'm a little bit short of WP:RS and, more crucialy, of time as well. Thanks for your help! OrangeKnight (talk) 07:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John. Both dates are correct per Wisden 1983, p.278, which gives a list of formation dates. In fact the county club did not play outside the East Anglia area until 1857 when it played Surrey and was recognised as first-class from that match until its demise in 1869. CTC continued to play against CUCC until 1861 at least but there was overlap between CTC and Cambs CCC so it is difficult to separate them. The modern Cambs CCC was founded in 1891. --Jack | ^{talk page} 09:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John. When you look at some of the players who have been featured on the front page, it seems amiss that the greatest player of them all has not; and remains just a measly B-class. Do you think we are getting close to the point where WG could be nominated for FA?

I think some polish is needed, especially as there are a handful of dubious sentences which I've tagged for "cn". The thing is that the article has now topped the 70kb mark and yet I could still add lots of content: it's knowing where to draw the line. This morning, for example, I've been writing about his education which, hitherto unmentioned, must be there to "round him out".

What do you think? Regards. --Jack | ^{talk page} 10:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to be quite honest with you, I despise the FA and GA processes which, as you say, take up a lot of time and are extremely frustrating. Perhaps we should consider going for the A-class rating which is handled within the cricket project itself. The only problem with that will be finding someone who's willing to do the review that hasn't been involved with the article. --Jack | ^{talk page} 19:58, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, GA is a special process like FA but supposedly not as stringent. You have to nominate an article on a certain page and then leave it there till someone (who could be anyone at all) takes up the review. I've never fully understood the rationale for A being ahead of GA but I think GA is supposed to mean an article that provides a broad coverage and has been well written and presented; whereas an A is supposed to be a complete article. What I don't get is how any article can be considered complete unless it is very short with a clearly defined scope.

I'm thinking maybe it is a bad idea to go through the reviews and we should just make the article as good and as complete as we think it should be, which is what we try to do anyway. --Jack | ^{talk page} 20:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I bought the Rae biography some months ago and I've read it twice now. I think it's easily the best WG biography because it is so thorough and makes clear what its sources are; plus he's a very readable author who isn't overawed by WG like some of his biographers have been. --Jack | ^{talk page} 20:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The match report for DH Robins' XI v Indians in 1971 says that India was set a target of 182 in just under two hours. It is also said elsewhere in the same report that Abbas Ali Baig was out just before tea (65-1-38). There was no rain on the last day. So the statements could both be true only if the final session of the match was only 60-90 minutes long. Was this true for any fc matches in England during this era ? Tintin 08:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I am using the book "India in England 1971" by Sunder Rajan that was published just after the series. Don't have the Wisden. Tintin 13:24, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From the bodyline article : "Larwood and Voce practised the plan over the next two seasons of English county cricket, terrorising their opponents as Nottinghamshire finished near the top of the competition each year. By the time the English team left for Australia on 17 September 1932, Larwood and Voce, along with Bill Bowes from Yorkshire, had perfected their attack". This implies a few things, am not sure whether they are all correct.

(a) This says that they had already tried out bodyline at home, in county cricket, several times. Did they ? Carr used it a couple of times (against Hobbs etc) and was admonished for it. The article says that it was after the tour.

(b) That Bowes already knew the plan before leaving England. I think in the serial, until Jardine explains it to Larwood and Voce while travelling in the ship, they had no clue about the exact tactics. If Bowes was on it already, it has many implications. Did the other fast bowlers know it already - Allen or Tate - or was it just for the really fast pros ? If Bowes had known and "perfected it", at least the Yorkshire captain would have known it. Etc. Tintin 08:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is also no word about the newspaper business that Bradman got into. Could you please archive the old stuff in this page. Tintin 08:35, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I had to go for a brief hibernation. Tintin 08:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My thanks for your correction of my importance classification. I fear I was going through some many players so quickly that my brains started to addle! Harrias (talk) 20:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was intending to yes, but got sidetracked with Cornelius Coward! You are welcome to add whatever content you feel suitable - I know you've been around cricket articles for a long time and know what tone and content are appropriate and what isn't. :) SGGH ^ping! 19:24, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I recently moved one of your userspace drafts into article space in order to repair a Cut and Paste move than an editor had performed earlier. You can read the notice on our administrators' noticeboard here. They copied the editable text from your draft, pasted it into a new window and made an article. This is bad for us because it means that you, the creator of that content are not properly attributed. In repairing the move I had the option of either simply deleting the content from article space or moving your draft page over their article. Since the draft seemed good enough to be an article, I chose to move your draft page over their article.

This is reversible! You can view your draft as it was when you last edited it by clicking on the page history and viewing the revision which bears your name. If you feel that the draft does not belong in mainspace, contact me or any other admin and we will simply move the article into your userspace and delete the redirect. You can reverse the move yourself if you choose, but please remember to place a speedy deletion template (such as {{db-house}} or {{Db-r2}}) on the resulting redirect from the article to your subpage.

I'm sorry that your work got mixed up like this. Please let me know if there are any problems or if you need help with anything. Protonk (talk) 06:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thing No.4 Tintin 03:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John. A major omission from my cricket book collection is Arlott on Cricket but I've just spotted a good condition copy from a reputable seller on eBay for £1-30 plus a couple of quid postage. Definitely a bargain, I'd say, and I'll take it with me when I go on holiday in a couple of weeks time. Whenever I endure the present cacophony on TMS, I often think how good John Arlott was. All the best. --Jack | ^{talk page} 05:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the above and the reverting, I've left my own warning alongside yours. Hopefully the use can be engaged in discussion. If not, the constant reverting to a version which violates WP:CITE, WP:BLP and WP:NOV can be classed as vandalism without we ourselves falling foul of WP:OWN. I'm watching the page to see what happens next. --SGGH ^ping! 02:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We had our holiday in Windermere this week and I took Arlott's book with me to read in the evenings. It is very enjoyable and there is some excellent source material in it, especially the chapter about Gary Sobers, which I want to use. I think the one about Alresford is very good too but I believe you've already covered that on here. We had a great holiday, lovely weather, but back to work on Monday! All the best. --Jack | ^{talk page} 10:55, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as there is a citation, it seems fair enough but it's very odd that none of his biographers picked it up. I'm afraid my habitual suspicion of IP addresses was unjustified this time. The Wanderers folded in 1881 after their halcyon days in the 1870s. WG lived at Earl's Court from Feb 1875 until October or November 1877; then at Acton from about Sept 1878 until the end of 1879, just after he qualified as a doctor. The dates and personal circumstances comply. The Wanderers was essentially based at Battersea but did, as the name suggests, wander. So, WG could have played for them at the end of the 1874–75 season and through the 1875–76 and 1876–77 seasons until the start of the 1877–78 season. He could have returned for the 1878–79 season and played till midway through the 1879–80 season. As he couldn't really pursue his normal rural practices (e.g., running with the dogs) while he lived in London, it is feasible that he sought another winter activity to keep fit and, after all, there are several famous football clubs which were formed by cricket clubs for the purpose of keeping the players fit in winter. --Jack | ^{talk page} 04:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given WG's reputation for gamesmanship, I dread to think what he got up to on a football field. I just read Arlott's piece on WG's report of Elysian cricket. I bet he's in the Elysian Leeds United team too! No, that can't be right: Leeds must be in the other place. --Jack | ^{talk page} 04:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find a source for saying Gibson took his own life so I have taken the reference out. I am sure I have read it somewhere as I can recall how saddened I was. However, you are right, I should not have put it in unless I can show it to be true. Thank you for pointing this out. --John Price (talk) 09:34, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be completely honest with you, the main reason I didn't ask for comment was that originally, and indeed until yesterday itself, I wasn't planning on removing the list from the main County Championship page. It was only when I'd put my list up, and was looking around other competitions to see how they did it that I discovered pretty much none of them had a list of winners. Personally I'd be more in favour of a shorter list of recent winners, with a link to the full list; but then the promotion/relegation table seems to do that. I'd be happy for the list to return on the main page, and merely link to the List for more details? (Yes, this is exactly why it seems discussion was necessary before hand. Apologies.) Harrias (talk) 09:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have posted a comment there now, look forward to your input :D Harrias (talk) 09:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent point regarding the category, and something I'll get to as soon as I can. Unfortunately I'm away from home on a work course at the moment, and have limited access to the internet. I'll probably be able to get to it towards the end of the week. Thanks for the spot though. Harrias (talk) 16:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've now added a brief description. Have a gander and feel free to make any further clarifications you feel are needed. Harrias (talk) 17:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Krenakarore (talk) 20:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, he was groundsman there at the same time I think. Have a fair bit to write about it, but the United-Liverpool match has stolen my interest for a while! Harrias (talk) 14:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have reverted and another warn. If he doesn't engage in constructive conversation with one of us, he can be warned for vandalism. Perhaps we can take a unified report to WP:COI or WP:AN/I. SGGH ^ping! 20:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/The Invincibles/archive1 YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles Featured topic drive:one left) 02:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crack on, my friend. :) SGGH ^ping! 06:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up. I'll keep an eye on the article, but am no expert on him: slightly before my time! Kind regards. Johnlp (talk) 14:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JH. Would you be able to take a brief look at the above, and see if you could pop the moment of leading wicket taker and/or surpassing Ian Botham (and/or being surpassed in turn) as you seem to be more knowledgeable than I. In the mean time, I'll try to accommodate the other suggestions. Cheers, SGGH ^ping! 11:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was your recommendation that swung it! When you mentioned it, I kept noticing it cropping up in a lot of the stuff I was reading. I was trying to make up my mind about getting it when I saw it very cheap in a 2nd hand bookshop. A brilliant book! I've used it in a few of the articles I'm working on (which tend to be obscure Yorkshire ones from before the war, although I've been expanding Jardine a lot and I've used it there too). Also, I've added a ref to your part about the professional captains as someone might well challenge it if the article ever goes any further. It's a bit of an obscure ref but it does the job. I don't think that Hawke comes out of any of this very well as it seems he just got cold feet. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:31, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On a completely unrelated matter, I noticed a while ago that you have an interest in Surrey and meant to mention this but never got round to it. Do you have anything on M.R. Jardine, Douglas's father? (except what is in his Wisden obituary) He has no article which is a shame. I've got bits and pieces: there's some in Jardine's biography by Christopher Douglas and bits in Wilde's Ranji biography. Do you have any more? Ditto with Jack Crawford. All I know is what's in his Wisden obit and some pieces from 1905-1910 Wisdens from the Wisden anthology about him at school and his falling out with the committee. His article could be expanded quite a bit and generally tidied and referenced. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for edits. I'm hoping to work on Crawford (and Malcolm Jardine) in the not-too-distant future. Although I've got a list of Yorkshire cricketers I'd like to work through first. Must get my priorities straight! :) --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:15, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is pretty important, particular as the new editor of PCA has gone with the official line. Apart from the Hunte business in the 1929-30 WI series(Long resolved) it's the only time test statistics have come under attack except from the ROW 1970 series. Those points could actually go under 1 heading. What do you think? Variations in Tests stas would be too small. (There used to be a problem over the 1938 Tent Bridge Test as well, a mistranscribed score which actually remains in that wisden)KestevenBullet (talk) 07:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that a separate article "Variations in Test Match Statistics" would be justified. I don't think that it matters if it's short. And you could add something on the 1970 England v RoW series, which the TCCB promoted as Tests at the time and which for a number of years thereafter Wisden and some other authorities accepted as Tests. I don't think that such material belongs in the "Variations in First-class Cricket Statistics" article, as the f-c status of the matches involved is not in question. JH (talk page) 08:57, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. Of course there is the original status of the 1929-30 WI series. They were styled 'representative matches.' SA also gave caps for the rogue matches in the 80's. There is also a case for Variations in List A because several of the county statisticians include Fennar Trophy etc in their records. I must tell you that Phil Baily who is behind List A, has blind spot on the Fenner. At last count six counties were issuing it in their records section.I do not know how to set up a template. Could you help?KestevenBullet (talk) 12:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean that you don't know how to create an article, then if you just type the desired name of the article into the Search box and press Go, it should tell you that the article does not exist and give you the option of crerarting it. If you have any trouble with that, then get back to me. JH (talk page) 17:27, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ThanksKestevenBullet (talk) 19:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have a birthday coming up and may treat myself if none of my offspring take the hint... I do hope it includes the article he produced after an almost entirely blank day at Derby in which he mused on the unlikelihood of a revival in Derbyshire's cricket fortunes unless there were substantial changes to the rules about allowable words in the Scrabble games in the Derbyshire press box. Johnlp (talk) 19:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gibson's report on that day is published in The Times issue of Saturday 8 June 1974 page 15. The day was short of cricket, not so much due to the weather, more because of Surrey's victory by an innings - match over by 1.10pm . I too have enjoyed many Gibson 'pieces' over the years, so am pleased to see that a collection of them has been published. Think we're pretty fortunate here in Tasmania - a reader's ticket with the State Library provides free access to The Times digital archive !

RossRSmith (talk) 09:42, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The offspring delivered! I have the book. A joy to be savoured in small helpings across the summer. Johnlp (talk) 17:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note: I've reffed it. Colin Atkinson said of Clayton: "He wouldn't do what he was told." Johnlp (talk) 19:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a Surrey chap, I wondered if you might be interested in this review for Jardine. It hasn't had many customers yet, so any comments would be appreciated. Thanks. --Sarastro1 (talk) 10:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your offer of help which would be much appreciated. Apart from WG himself, I'd say The Master was probably the best there's ever been: just the man to have in your team when you have to bat on a bad wicket. I've just bought Ronald Mason's book from eBay. I've never read it before. I've also bought John Arlott's book, though I have read that before. I'll increase my involvement with the Hobbs article soon as first I need to add more to Sutcliffe. Regards. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 05:20, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 05:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The sentence as it stood was more of a holding job until I could get to it properly, and I've put it back. I'm trying to give the article a good copy-edit following a (partial) peer review, with a view to FAC. However, I'm unable to spend much time on wiki until next week at the earliest, so other little glitches may appear over the next day or two! Cheers. --Sarastro1 (talk) 07:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised how old that graph is. It was created in 2005 by Raven4x4 who used to do a lot of work around WP:CRIC and I think he produced quite a lot of these Excel-based graphs. Fortunately, the file version explains that the blue line is a useful indicator of his current form at the time of each innings (i.e., his average over his previous 10 innings). Regards. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 04:28, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John. Re your mails to me, I know you are interested in this article and, now that I've reached a point where I need to take a step back, I wonder if you'd like to peer review it. I'm happy to discuss any questions or issues might arise and if you have any additional sources, I'd be more than happy to see some additional content or views. I have relied mainly on Alan Hill's book as that is the most comprehensive biography available to me but I've tried to get as much as I can from other sources too. All the best. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 13:59, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, John. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 18:10, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but the point is made in the earlier bit.KestevenBullet (talk) 14:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. A direct quote must be verbatim even if it contains a misquote, if you see what I mean. The difference is minimal so I won't add anything re what Bradman said to Wisden. It's a good example of how writers lift a particular statement from a source like Wisden and then, intentionally or not, change it. I've noticed it often and I think most writers probably just "get the gist" and use that without checking the precise wording of the original. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 04:46, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip. I've just been out and bought the paper and will use some of the wartime stuff today (unless you get there first). Nice to see some of our words on his cricket career being used and only minimally edited towards the end of the Telegraph obit. Johnlp (talk) 11:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh. I go out for the evening and it gets done. If only the rest of my life was so orderly. Johnlp (talk) 00:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'm tinkering with the Test section at the moment, proving frustrating! I've added a reference column, I'm going to try and put the year it was first used for first-class cricket in with the county teams coloum (maybe need to change the heading for that one). The problem comes with the amount of teams who have used the ground, which ends up using an insane amount of room. It might be better for me to just include the current county team or teams like the Gentlemen and the Surrey Club who have used the ground multiple times, so as to keep that section compact. Feel free to have a play with the Test grounds section! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 21:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I'm nearly there. There are some ground details I need to fill in, but I have (well I think I have!) every ground in England and Wales where a major match has been played. Added a paragraph explaining (which I need to expand on some more) each section and checked the references. Should be done by Sunday! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 21:50, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done it, all 482 venues on the list. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 10:19, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can probably do a stub on Old Ebor. Even Jim Kilburn doesn't have an article! But I have so little info, a stub is all I can do I'm afraid. On an unrelated matter, you seem like you may have a huge cricket library. I'm trying to get my head around the whole image thing at the moment. My main problem is finding when some very well known old images were first published to get around the pd thing. As I understand it, no matter how old a photo is, if it was not published before 1923, it is not public domain. Soooo... If you have any pre-1923 books, a trawl of images would be very helpful! --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a quick go at the article and called it Alfred Pullin rather than Old Ebor. I found something at ODNB as well as the Wisden obituary, but that's all I've got for the moment. Feel free to stick anything from Swanton. --Sarastro1 (talk) 10:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of interest, what were Swanton's anecdotes? --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:56, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Sarastro1 (talk) 09:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I got the information from the picture on wikicommons. The person who uploaded the picture said in the description: "This is the birthplace of the Women's Cricket Association, formed in 1926 by a group of enthusiasts after a cricket holiday in Malvern. They ran matches throughout England and in their first season staged 49 games and a cricket festival here in Colwall" They also left a link, which I presume had a source for it, which linked to the Yorkshire Cricket Board site; helpfully the link is a dead one. I've included the information in the article, but women's cricket seems damn hard to research! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 20:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just seen your comments on the talk page. On the Gentlemen front, I have been considering removing them from the article based on the exact reason you have put down; that being the venues were neutral and the Gentlemen as such did not have a home ground. Do you think removing all mention of the Gentlemen and Players teams from the list would be the best thing to do (plus it would reduce article size!). On splitting the article, I think it should be kept together for completeness purposes. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 11:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've near enough done all the grounds now, every section has a bluelink to one (some need are pre-existing and need work doing). About the gentlemen v players... each ground they played at was pretty much a neutral one, thus maybe they shouldn't appear on page as a 'home' team. So I agree with getting rid of them, but then it crossed my mind that adding footnotes would in all probability increase the size of the page quite dramatically! What to do??? AssociateAffiliate (talk) 17:25, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the article is long overdue for redemption as it was in a bit of a state and obviously has nowhere near enough content. I've decdied to start at the very beginning with his early life and then progress chronologically. If you want to join me and pick up a later phase, that would be great as I anticipate this will become as big as WG and Herbert. I'm more interested in philately articles at present but I've decided to work on Hobbs too to give me a change of scene.  :-) Regards. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 21:13, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've got both those books. I think Arlott's is by far the better so if you can get hold of a copy, I'd recommend it. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 10:20, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean. It wasn't an intentional revert. I have my own copy of the article in TextPad and have been working on that. I didn't notice the bot update this time. It will be around again in a day or two so I'll take a fresh workcopy after it's done. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 20:25, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My edition of Mason does have an index and you need page 190.  :-) ----Jack | ^{talk page} 18:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice one. And I promise I've copied it into my working version.  :-) My edition of Mason, by the way, is the one issued by the Sportsman's Book Club in 1961. I gather there is even a much later reprint: c.1988. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 20:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On closer examination, the two articles are very similar and the obituary actually carries a caveat to the effect that much of its content is taken from an earlier article in the Manchester Guardian!! Surely Wisden must have had someone who could write an original obituary? Ah, well. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 18:40, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, aiming to add plenty more! Put what I had up, as although it isn't finished, it was a fair bit better than what was already there. The clean up tags were annoying our friends at Wikipedia:WikiProject Somerset too, which sped me up a little. I've concentrated primarily on the 'factual' matters to build the framework of the article, and am planning to add in the more 'anecdotal' parts toward the end, slotting them in where they add the most value. Any help you can offer would be invaluable. I think his early life (up to the end of Cambridge University maybe?) will probably warrant an article of its own in the end. Harrias ^talk 21:50, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know you are not an FAC chap, but I need a little favour if possible. The review for Bosanquet mentions it is a little light on print sources (I've mainly used old newspaper and Wisden stuff). Do you have any general/Golden Age books which mention anything useful about him at all? Even if it just rehashes what is already there, at least it's a different source. Thanks. --Sarastro1 (talk) 10:53, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the additions. Is there anything in Barclays which puts his achievements into context or anything like that? --Sarastro1 (talk) 11:19, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Cricket for an article for The Signpost. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Thanks and I take this opportunity to wish you a very Happy New Year! – SMasters (talk) 07:11, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've thought for a long time that it's been a major omission. I had flu recently and reading was about all I could manage to do, so this was one of my choices, and I got the idea for the article when I read the villainous Mr Mote's description of the many editions it has gone through. Then I thought of including a list of players and that was enough to provide momentum. I've never done an article about a book before so it is a bit of a challenge as I don't want to seem to be reviewing it and I'm not altogether sure what should be included.

If you've any ideas, please do pitch in. I'm doing a bit more on it at the moment around some of the key references he provided like the superstar analogy and the monster bat story. I think they will add some flavour and show what an imporatnat source he remains.

All the best for 2011 (a bit late). ----Jack | ^{talk page} 10:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about the Rev. John Mitford's family connections but, if you see John Mitford re the Navy man, he is mentioned there and in proximity with Mary. And there is more in William Mitford who was a cousin of the reverend but it says there that Mary was distant relative. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 21:29, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re the forensic examination, it is a bit tricky to get the meaning across. I've had another shot at it. See what you think. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 17:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Found a statement by John Arlott in 1957, included in Arlott on Cricket, which emphasises the book's importance and quality. I've added that to the lead. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 20:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that in History of cricket to 1725, I added a qualification of the date such as "(Julian calendar date, equating to the year 1680 in the Gregorian calendar)" which provides more explanation than simply saying "(Julian date)". What do you think? ----Jack | ^{talk page} 20:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:

• This permission does not give you any special status or authority
• Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
• You may wish to display the {{Autopatrolled}} top icon and/or the {{User wikipedia/autopatrolled}} userbox on your user page
• If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it

If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing! Acalamari 18:52, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. This is where I found date and place of birth:

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/section?content=a912545413&fulltext=713240928

Regards Plucas58 (talk) 18:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the catch, a slightly embarrassing error! Have you come across the Green book? It's got some good stuff in it. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:37, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments; please see my response. Further comments? Newwhist (talk) 15:26, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given that you've mentioned that Hutton bet on Wilson scoring more runs than Cowdrey, it might be worth redressing the balance by mentioning that Hutton seems to have treated Cowdrey very well - indeed with much more consideration than senior players such as Bedser. I know that Cowdrey said in his autobiography that, as a young player on his first tour, he was very grateful at the way Hutton took him under his wing, especially when his father died during the course of the tour (or it might have been during the sea voyage out). I'd dig out a reference, but I have a heavy feverish cold today and don't feel like doing anything too taxing. JH (talk page) 18:31, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall reading anything that Hutton treated Cowdrey better than the other young players. Keith Miller wrote that Hutton compained that the young players didn't ask him for advice and that they disliked his grumpy moods. Graveney wrote Hutton would just look straight through you as if you weren't there and by all accounts he was pretty wound up during the tour. Cowdrey's father died on the voyage out and it is mentioned in MCC tour of Australia in 1954–55 if you want to add something there. It also has Douglas Jardine giving Cowdrey some farewell advice and Hutton telling the young players that they had little chance of playing in the Tests. Regards,Philipjelley (talk) 18:39, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read that and I am loathe to put it in without a direct ref as it was against Hutton's character as usually described. I'll look up Tyson when I get home tomorrow, as he mentions MCC receiving the news in Eye of the Typhoon.Philipjelley (talk) 19:19, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have added "The 22-year-old had received news of his father's death at the start of the tour, but soldiered on, thanks to the advice and encouragement from his young teammate Peter May and father figure and captain Len Hutton". That seems to sum it up.Philipjelley (talk) 19:43, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you are interested in MCC you may like this piece of purple prose regards his 307 vs South Australia on the MCC tour of Australia in 1962–63. "His cover-drive was still his chief glory, but other shots were scarcely inferior: the glory of the moon and stars as opposed to the rich glory of the sun. There seemed to be no effort about his work. With a short back-swing he persuaded the ball through the gaps, guiding it with an iron hand inside the velvet glove which disguised his power and purpose." Johnny Moyesp. 72, Moyes and GoodmanPhilipjelley (talk) 20:57, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've finally finished what was supposed to be a quick job. I think i've covered everything, but another pair of eyes would be appreciated, especially on the Surrey details. I'm probably going to put it up at GAN in a day or two (although I know that's not your thing!). Some images of cricketers would be good; I wanted one of Leveson-Gower, but I couldn't find one so I had to go for Lord Alverstone. I don't suppose you have a nice pre-1923 image of Shrimp going spare??? --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:53, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. One point is that these two matches (I've specified which ones now) were apparently the only two fixtures Repton played against schools: this comes from the Wisden school report from those years. I agree about the Oval and removed it but I took out the comment about Alverstone's death as it is not really reflected in the sources; I might add it in a summary of what happened to the main players such as Leveson Gower, but I'm not quite sure if it's worth it, or where it should go. But I think placing it next to his return after the dispute was over may be synthesis. I'll stick it up at GAN later tonight! --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re Surrey committee: I suspect you are right, but we still run the risk of synthesis I think. However, do you have anything on the Surrey committee of the time which mentions some of their enlightened stuff, as we could easily add a section about this and include the death of Alverstone. And I think it reads OK in terms of chronology at the moment, as all the sources are very vague as to when they made peace. --Sarastro1 (talk) 11:09, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear! I changed it (I hope it's not too repetitive now, which was my main reason for unintentionally promoting Cardus!) to having two writers. To be honest, I much prefer Cardus although he is slightly frowned upon now for his flights of fancy. But if you read his actual match reports, he was a very good reporter of cricket as well. However, I've never read a Swanton match report, to be fair, and the only real work of his I own are some of his obituaries, which are very good. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:11, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find any direct connection to Scotland that would account for his qualification for the Scottish rugby team, and was going to look further into his father. Thomson (without a "p") is a "fairly Scottish" name, I think: not sure I've ever come across anyone called "Alpin" before. I presume his qualification for Somerset was from his parents having moved there, which would, I assume, have been between 1902 (which is, from memory, when the individual states of Australia united to form the single country, so Alpin Sr's job would presumably have disappeared) and 1916, when his sister got married. I shall delve further. The Wellington story, btw, is told of both Peter Randall Johnson and Tom Lowry. Johnlp (talk) 20:14, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and George Thomson was a minister in Wilson and Callaghan governments and was very Scottish indeed. And the Lord Thomson of Fleet that I used to work for a long time ago was Canadian, but his forename was Kenneth, which is fairly Scottish (his father was Roy Thomson, who owned The Times). Our Alpin Thomson's father appears to have been Alpin Fowler Thomson; the Western Australia records that are online have him down as ?1858-1900, but we know from The Times announcement in 1916 that he was alive well beyond 1900, so maybe he left the colony in 1900. Interestingly, in the British Guiana records there is a note of an Alpin Fowler marrying an Anne Margaret Thomson in the first half of the 19th century; the note may be wrong of course, or perhaps Ms Thomson had the money that Master Fowler married into... on condition he change his name. I shall look further. Johnlp (talk) 20:37, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re Woods: Yes, it's a bit lifeless now, isn't it? You don't get much idea of the charisma of the man which everyone testified to. Not sure how much time I'm going to have in the next few weeks: I've just emerged blinking from a huge amount of RL stuff but can already see the next lot piling up for me from the end of this week. Johnlp (talk) 21:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. It's still early days, of course, and I appreciate any help. I've certainly seen a reference to "Barney" but not sure where now, so I'll see if one reappears as I read around. The league cricket one did trouble me as I expected to find a generic article about league cricket and found only specific ones. I think you're right and I'll link to the specifics. --Mykleavens (talk) 19:32, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No trouble at all. I have a fair bit of free time on my hands at the moment and feel as though my last little project on here is as complete as it'll ever be, so I may try to spend some time on Surrey. After all, the Surrey article should be the best county cricket club one there is, right?  Omg †  osh  22:49, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's really no trouble. Do be bold and make any changes you think appropriate.  Omg †  osh  20:10, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have spotted the excellent contributions that you have made to Andrew Robson. I am not trying to create extra work for others but I wonder if I might just mention Tony Forrester in case you feel moved to do anything there? Bridgeplayer (talk) 13:58, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great work! Thanks! Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:13, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you are well! Prompted mainly by this, I was having a look on the articles on Hobbs and Sutcliffe that Blackjack did a lot of work on. As he is no longer around, it seems a shame to let all that work go to waste and I was debating tacking Sutcliffe to bring the length down and sort out the images (most of which are not PD-US unfortunately). I thought it may be worth trying for GA and then FA for it as it is fairly comprehensive. It's more a case of what needs to come out. Also, I know he started Hobbs and then stopped and that you were working with him. I recently got the new Hobbs biography (I haven't read it all yet, though!) and, again, was toying with the idea of working on that as I now seem to have somehow acquired all three of Hobbs' biographies! It seems a shame that Hobbs in particular is not at least a GA as he is such an important figure. I know you don't bother with GAs or FAs, but what do you think about working on these two articles? Any suggestions? --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:30, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I've addressed your comment on the review. Could you take a look again and provide any further feedback? cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 07:48, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That introduced a typo, which I've taken the liberty of correcting. Otherwise I'm happy with the revised wording. Unfortunately I don't have time right at the moment to read through the whole article to see if I have any further feedback. I might be able to tomorrow (Sunday). JH (talk page) 08:59, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I don't know how I missed that! Perhaps I should stop moving stuff around and just write afresh to avoid these errors. Sure, there's no hurry, looking forward to your feedback as I'll be getting the ODI list up in a couple of days and any feedback on this will be useful for that too. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 09:35, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are right! It says this a couple of times in Cricinfo articles, but a check on CricketArchive shows that it's nonsense. At the end of 1901, Richardson had 1,870 wickets. At the end of Mold's last match, he had 1,854 wickets. Even if you take the time Mold was first called, Richardson had 1,640 while Mold had 1,577. So whichever way you look at it, Cricinfo is wrong. I've taken out the claim! --Sarastro1 (talk) 11:27, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking about sticking this up at FAC after taking it to PR in the next few weeks. One thing that concerns me slightly is a lack of breadth in the sources; there's a bit from Swanton and, indirectly, from Cardus (any idea where he wrote that?), but the rest comes from Wisden and Benny Green. Is there anything in any of the Surrey histories? Even just a sentence or two, or comments about the "dispute" may give it a little more depth, even if it doesn't say much new. If there is a bit, we can be a bit selective and use it to source some of the stuff already in there. This kind of thing is actually quite important at FAC, believe it or not, to make sure that all the relevant authorities are included. However, if there is nothing else out there, we can't include it. But if you could have a quick check, I'd appreciate it. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:38, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anything would be good, just for breadth. I've checked the following: Wisden obituary and CoY article, Cricinfo page, Times obituary, the Benny Green book, the Wisden 1900-1940 Anthology, and the Hobbs book by McKinstry. I've also looked at Birley's Social History which doesn't really add to the picture. The Lemmon book looks to be the most likely for a Surrey POV, so that would be good, as would any juicy Arlott quotes. If Cardus wrote the World of Cricket profile, the article needs changing as it attributes opinions to Swanton; I may change the ref to make Cardus the author and Swanton the editor. I suspect the chap who put the stuff in did not do us any favours if it is cited incorrectly! I think the article overall is in decent shape and I doubt there is much more to go in; it may just need a few quotes and opinions to round it off. And there's no rush; I was thinking of PR next week and maybe FAC by the end of October. --Sarastro1 (talk) 17:34, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it may be better to change to your edition. Mykleavens seems to have vanished, and if any questions came up over sourcing, it would be better to have your edition cited as it could be easily checked. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking about the best way to cite BWOC, it may be worth citing the author and chapter in the book (i.e. Cardus, Neville, "Whatever the chapter is called", in Swanton, E. W. (ed) etc. I think the citation template does it more elegantly!). Could you stick in the chapter/section titles where appropriate and we can tidy it up later if it's needed. Again, no rush for this one. Thanks! --Sarastro1 (talk) 18:11, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for paying attention! I knew what I meant, but did not say what I meant! I've now changed it to "all but two of the founding member clubs winning by.." which is what I intended! Hope that make more sense. Harrias ^talk 19:28, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence for a Weald origin is non-existent and it's based on speculation. I know I read a book by John Arlott many years ago in which he suggested the Weald, possibly one he wrote with Fred Trueman. On the other hand, I was once involved in a discussion with someone who insisted that cricket began in Guildford with John Derrick's schoolboys! It's not even certain that it was originally a children's game either, although Derrick's statement and the definition in the Cotgrave dictionary strongly suggest that it was. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 20:09, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Much obliged for the copy-editing. It's always good for more eyes on it, particularly having spent a while hammering away at it. And I've got Crawford up at peer review at the moment, so we'll see how that one goes. I might be in touch if there are any problems! Thanks. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:15, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to say yesterday, thanks for doing the GA review. I didn't think you went for GA stuff, but it's great to have a really knowledgable eye at this stage. My main worry to be honest is over his non-cricket stuff as I'm not too sure how it all reads, not being a particular expertise of mine. Feel free to be harsh as I hope (eventually, but quite a way down the line) to take it to FAC. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:43, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA is usually just one reviewer: it is FA where lots of people chip in. At GA, the person who starts the review is the person who passes or fails it. Sometimes, but very rarely, others become involved, but it is usually a solo effort. While it would be great for you to review it, if you don't want to be the one to do it all or won't have time, one of us could ping someone to sort it out: there are a few admins at GA who may know what to do and could "undo" this as the full review. I know a chap! I'm fine either way, its up to you. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:02, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine with me! I'd rather a good review than a really quick one. These things are recommended to be done in 7 days, but I believe the new "limit" is 30 days and then people chase us with big sticks. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:34, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Many (but not all) reviewers fix minor things and only raise it at the review if it is unclear or a matter of opinion. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:01, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how much of Learie you've got left to do, but when you are done I'd appreciate a quick look at Len Hutton. I've nominated it for Peer Review here and any comments would be appreciated. If you haven't time, don't worry. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:43, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the people with big sticks have arrived! --Sarastro1 (talk) 15:20, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied to the final points and left one question. If we are getting close to wrapping this up, the instructions for what to do next are at the top of the page at WP:GAN. Thanks for everything so far. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the article to pass, all you need to do is to state the "topic" and page number within the template, so that it would look like this: {{GA|~~~~~|topic=Sports and recreation|page=1}}. You put this in place of {{GA nominee|22:02, 29 November 2011 (UTC)|nominator=[[User:Sarastro1|Sarastro1]] ([[User talk:Sarastro1|talk]])|page=1|subtopic=Sports and recreation|status=onreview|note=}} , which is there now. You then stick [[Learie Constantine|Constantine, Learie]] in the cricket section of this page and put {{Good article}} somewhere on the article itself.

I admit reviewing can be a pain, but I've quite got into it myself as you learn all sorts of nonsense from reading other articles. But, yes there is quite a lot of bureaucracy which you have to get used to, unfortunately, and it may be better spent writing! --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GAs are only listed once. Not sure about the other projects, but I don't think there is a diplomacy one. I'll see if I can add law and politics. Thanks for all your help, even if you probably regret starting!! --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:36, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added politics, but I'm not sure I can add law in all conscience, as it seems to be heavyweight law stuff and Learie, whatever his many merits, was hardly a big-hitting lawyer! --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you wouldn't mind casting your eye on the peer review of Crawford, the reviewer makes some very good comments for improving the article with a view to FAC. He is an exceptionally good FA reviewer, knows what kind of things need to be in there and is very knowledgeable on cricket. His main two points are about reaction to his selection for South Africa in 1905 and his "forgiveness" by Surrey in 1919. Do you have anything on either? I note there is a book by Plum Warner on the 1905 tour, but it seems to be impossible to get hold of. The British Library will happily send a scanned copy for around £30, which I am reluctant to do for obvious reasons! There also seems to be a book on the 1907-8 tour but same problems apply. The Times makes very little comment on any of it, so that is no help either. Suggestions appreciated! --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:30, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind words. I will add something from that article, but I noticed it was from the recent Kilburn anthology book. I can get hold of that in the next few days and will see if anything more can be added from there. In the meantime, that list of books (and anything else you may have) would be great. --Sarastro1 (talk) 18:39, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rummaging through some old files, I found a picture of Iain Macleod I took on an aged polaroid camera in the 1970 general election. I added it to his article, and then spotted that you had had a hand in editing it, as he was a bridge player. Small world... Johnlp (talk) 19:06, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note - I have tidied that new entry slightly Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} ^(Whisper...) 10:24, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a go at something different and re-written this article. But it's such a damned complicated law with such an odd history, I'd appreciate it if you could take a look and see what is missing and how much sense it makes. Any comments welcome as always! --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not to worry, it was only temporary. I was just tidying for the moment and want quite a bit more on his cricketing influences. --Sarastro1 (talk) 17:56, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How about "ruled" or "instructed" in place of "declared" (in place of "issued a notice")? Harrias ^talk 18:44, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This the post I have made to WP Admin. As you have doubted the veracity of this claim it might be of interest. If you find the attack BJ made on Golden Age of Cricket and the attack by JM on cricket 1940-4 - compare and it's as plain as. I really don't know why people are taken in. Can we please have action regarding Jim Hardie who is a blatant sockpuppet of BlackJack. Evidence - Jim Hardie has made over a hundred edits to pre=1800 cricket since 18th Feb whem user BlackJack 'retired'. No other editor has made these type of edits except Blackjack - these being tidying of references etc. He has attacked the entries of another editor using the same language, the same phrases, the same inside knowledge that was used when BlackJack was previously identified as an aggressive sockpuppet some time ago. He has used 'pretend' conversations between himself and Blackjack in a manner seen previously when he was using BartMaverick, Orrelly Man, JamesJJames sockpuppets. To summarise - Hardie has been active since Blackjack went silent - he edits the same esoteric edits using the same turns of phrase - attacks other editors in the same manner and has used similar expresions found on the Blackjack Midnight Rambler and Stumpsite website. Jim Hardie is blackjack. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.74.151 (talk) 06:56, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I don't believe that Jim Hardie is Blackjachk. You did yourself no favours when you vandalised his user page. And why do you yourself choose to remain anonymous? JH (talk page) 08:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll put that back as you are right. I'm just trying to cut it back to more manageable, readable lengths, with a view to taking it to FAC at some point. At the moment, I think it is much too long, so I am trying to tighten it up. I've left out the part about knocking out batsmen as a little too dramatic for this article, but mentioned the tactics to show the possible "retaliation".--Sarastro1 (talk) 20:01, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch! I'm not quite sure of how sympathetic Hammond really was, but we must go with our sources, so I've reworded it. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:50, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the copy-edits on Hobbs and Learie. I am finally nearing the end on Hobbs; the only lengthy thing left now is the 28-29 series, and everything else should come relatively quickly. However, we are currently on 13,147 words and there is still more to come, and nothing as such about his batting technique yet. There was quite a lot before, but there are some much better sources which can be used. And I suspect the casual reader will want to know more about if/why he was so good, rather than what he did in 1926. So length is a big problem, and if this were to go anywhere near GA or FA, no-one would touch it with a bargepole at these lengths, with some justification! So, my plan is to make at least one, possibly two forks of his career. Something like The early life and career of Jack Hobbs and possibly The post-war career of Jack Hobbs. And then cut his playing career back and put the interesting but not vital details in these two articles. At FA, something around 8,000 - 10,000 words is usually OK (and gives people a chance to actually read the whole thing) for someone as weighty as Hobbs (Or at least, it can be justified!), so I am aiming somewhere around that for the "finished product" in however many weeks/months down the line. And that will give us some room to go into his technique and legacy. Any thoughts? I think FA should be the aim for someone as important as this. Sorry for the long (and probably rambling) post! Sarastro1 (talk) 21:00, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bradman is currently 9,546 words, which is about right in my book. It's more a case of what people are prepared to read rather than a limit, but I have heard it argued that cricketers should not merit a greater length of article than a statesman or world-famous figure, and I have some sympathy with that. And I do have a tendency towards over-detailing anyway! Certainly, I think players such as Bradman, Hobbs, Hutton, Hammond, Tendulkar, Sobers, Lara, etc, are sufficiently important to warrant something around 8,000 words, but I personally think anything much over 10,000 (of which I am frequently guilty) is too much for any article. Apart from experts/fans, who would ever wade through all that? And I agree that the latter title is not the best, and would probably agree with yours or something similar. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:31, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Barker book is referenced by McKinstry, and may very well be useful for the forked article. As for the Oval match, I think it more than deserves its own article, given everything that has been written about it. But I'm afraid that is where i draw the line! Unlike YellowMonkey, who did articles on all the 1948 Tests, I hate writing about matches. I tried to expand one and it nearly drove me insane. Doing the scorecard alone was enough to put me off touching one ever again! --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:51, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be inclined to agree, but both CI and CA give fast-medium. And he was only fast before his injury, which makes maybe 2 or 3 years, so ... But then his Wisden obit gives fast. Hmmm. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:36, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're right. Bugger it, let's make him fast. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:55, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, great dollops of speculation, but interesting nevertheless. There is no doubt that he was a fascist, though. Odd chap. The article that all this comes from (which is quite widely referenced now. It's in the McKinstry Hobbs book and seems to be the definitive word on Gilligan's fascism. It has even made it into books on D'Oliviera!) mentions Mussolini, but only in reference to his influence on Australian fascism. And given that it is a rather academic article, and makes the (speculative) case rather persuasively, I think it's worth including. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:05, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was thinking about adding something to Toone. I've come across him before, and I suspect he was not all that popular with the Yorkshire team. Everything you read about him is a little fluffy, but I know that Rhodes, for one, utterly despised the man. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:36, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And on those who thought it was a good thing... C. B. Fry anyone? Although at least he had the excuse of a severe breakdown beforehand. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:39, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only problem on Tate is that the only source that I have about Gilligan's role is that it comes from Gilligan himself! I went as far as I felt was reasonable, but we could do with a source which gives Gilligan credit which does not come from the man himself. Sussex CCC history? Tate biography? Sarastro1 (talk) 09:06, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks re Captaincy Affair. But the Main Page is not always the most relaxing place to put an article... Sarastro1 (talk) 09:06, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All I found on the RAF was an unsourced claim in the article before I started work on it: he was in the RAF volunteer reserve as a physical trainer. There is something similar on the "Dulwich Old Boys" website which has a brief biography saying the same. But that may come from the old wikipedia article and is also unsourced. All I could fine which was reliable (and which I used in the personal life section) was that he was a welfare officer in the RAF. That seems to come from a syndicated Australian newspaper article. I've gone for that as it is a RS. As for the fascist thing, I'm not sure how seriously they would have taken it, and who knows what checks, interviews and goodness knows what else they did on him. And he seems to have given up the fascism after 1925, so who knows. He was certainly an establishment figure even after his dalliance with extreme politics. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:21, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've put in as much as I can think of now for his career and retirement. I'm now thoroughly sick of Sir Jack!!! I'm planning on leaving him alone for several weeks now to let some of the dust settle and to do some rummaging in other sources to see if there is anything else that can be included or made more concise. And to have a break from him. Then I plan to make the article forks that I mentioned earlier and cut the main article back to something readable and not so damned long. And I've done a to-do list which you've probably already seen which sets out what else I feel needs doing. Feel free to add to it or otherwise comment. Does the Surrey history have anything worth including, or any pithy phrases? County histories are always worth including. And if you turn anything else up or find any good sources/comments on anything which may need including, I'm using this as my dumping ground for stuff I don't know where to put. But I'm leaving technique and everything else until I've cut the article back so that I know how many words we are dealing with. I really think 9,000-10,000 words is the outside limit for a decent article that someone might read. Everything else will hopefully go into a fork. Cheers! Sarastro1 (talk) 22:11, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much agree, and I've added your list to the "to do" list. I think one or two points are covered in the article, but also need to go in a "general" section. Again, feel free to add more to the list or stick things in the sandbox, article, or anywhere else. It all needs a good tidy up anyway as I'm not sure some of the last sections make too much sense! Sarastro1 (talk) 12:23, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On an unrelated note, Yorkshire captaincy affair of 1927 was nominated and accepted for WP:TFA. It runs on 11 June and the blurb is here. Can't say I'm delighted, as you always get the idiots, but I suppose exposure is nice. I suppose. Although if anyone actually reads it, I will be surprised! Sarastro1 (talk) 12:32, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to ask a few days ago, but forgot all about it. I noticed that you added something from a CMJ book on broadcasting to the Gilligan article. Does that book (or any others you may have) mention anything about Norman Yardley's broadcasting career? His article is a little light on this at the moment. (And on his family, war service, and goodness knows what else; anything you may have would be gratefully received!) Sarastro1 (talk) 21:51, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does the CMJ book say how long Yardley was a commentator for? Re Bailey, there's quite a lot out there from Yorkshire chaps, so may be interesting to hear a different viewpoint. Yardley is another who I may eventually shove at FA, but I can't say I find him particularly interesting or inspiring! Sarastro1 (talk) 18:45, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Moved Bailey to the bibliography. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:58, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the re-arrangement to Frankel. Its a pretty good article (clinging by its fingertips to its B rating) which needs a bit of knocking into shape. I made a start on it today, but was aware that there was plenty of work to do. Articles on current sports stars are always bit of a pig as they need constant updating.  Tigerboy1966  20:03, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He's an interesting chap. According to his (pretty good) biography, he denied being Jewish and stated that he didn't think the perception affected his captaincy aspirations. My Lordship almost certainly did. Lovely man. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:57, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't actually got to that bit yet, just moving bits around. And he didn't actually play in 1919 because of a broken leg. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:45, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Added. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to make the medium pace point a little clearer, but will cover most of it in style and technique. The Cambridge thing is from Streeton, and more or less Fender's account, I think. I would imagine they wanted him for his cricket rather than anything else, as that was how it was in those days. I doubt many of the cricket blues got in on their brains; it was the old boy's network and could they bat prettily. So I don't want to change it too much as this is what the source says. I'm currently trying to work out what the **** happened with Bosanquet and several other articles. It seems some person asked for a history merge at George Dewhurst and this led to the unholy mess of my watchlist the wrecking of several article histories. Still trying to find out why exactly... Sarastro1 (talk) 16:35, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm suffering slightly from contradictory source here. It is Wisden which gives his preferred batting shots. To be honest, this section needs work and I'm just getting stuff in there for the moment. He isn't a player whose batting lends itself to technical analysis, but I'll try and make it coherent once its all in there. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've got me with "cloathed or not cloathed". I haven't a clue what that means but I'll try and find some ideas among the sources. I checked dictionary.com for "cloathed" but it doesn't have it and suggests "clothed". My trusty "Chambers" doesn't have the spelling at all. I hope it's not another Madge!!

You're right about the title as there are references to the term in some other articles so I've put (cricket) in to disambiguate. I've reduced importance to mid as you're right in WP terms. I'm glad you like the article. It occurred to me when I was trying to improve the Brodick article that it should be a piece on its own. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 21:21, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments! Please feel free to make any tweaks on the sandpage: I know generally it is frowned upon to edit within someone else's User-space, but I have no major issues with it. It might be easiest also if conversations about the article be placed on the (currently empty) talk page to avoid confusion? I would greatly appreciate your input on this though as it certainly strays outside my comfortable knowledge. Harrias ^talk 22:36, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you have the big OED you can find definition suggesting 'cleanly' or clean. It is often misinterpreted as meaning 'clothed' as in clothes but has rather more of a meaning of a)shod or attached b)cleanly — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.61.204 (talk) 10:25, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As a Surrey chap, what is your view on the title of this article? CricketArchive calls him Alan, Cricinfo calls him Herbert, and his Wisden obituary is no real help. Which should it be? Sarastro1 (talk) 20:49, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I thought you might know his real name! No plans to expand him, but came across him while adding bits to Fender (35 minutes and all that). Also came across another redlink, Miles Howell, who was nearly a Surrey captain. Don't suppose you know much about him? Sarastro1 (talk) 21:15, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely, just about to get to it now. Or very soon, anyway. One other snippet from Fender; the CA page on [the 35 minute match] names Fender as captain. But Streeton (and Fender himself) freely state that Wilkinson captained. I'm inclined to believe Streeton on this one, as I'm sure I've read the same elsewhere. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:28, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, well done for spotting the deliberate mistake! <cough> I think it's fixed now. Sarastro1 (talk) 11:32, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another redlink: Alfred Jeacocke. Do you know anything about him at all? Also, do you know anything about the match which is mentioned by Streeton where he and Fender were the only two Surrey players at the start of a day's play and had to bowl and field by themselves until the team turned up? Sarastro1 (talk) 18:45, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I think I remember reading it elsewhere. Somewhere a bit "gossipy". Maybe something like Brodribb; must look it up sometime. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"His greatest strength was in Classics, his poorest subject being Mathematics"? No semi-colon? Please reply here...--andreasegde (talk) 18:28, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure whether by "here" you meant in my journal or in yours, so I'll reply in both. To use a semi-colon, you would need to say "His greatest strength was in Classics; his poorest subject was Mathematics", since with a semi-colon both parts have to have the same syntax as if they were separate sentences. As it's currently worded, the comma is correct. JH (talk page) 18:42, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"being" is a verb, as is "was". By using a semi-colon, you omit: "His greatest strength was in Classics; [but] his poorest subject was Mathematics". The other side of the coin is, "His greatest strength was in Classics; [with] his poorest subject being Mathematics". Please reply on your talk page; [because] it is easier. Ta very much. :) --andreasegde (talk) 19:00, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"being" is the participle form of the verb, and can't stand as the main verb of a sentence. Both entities separated by a semi-colon have to be capable of standing as sentences on their own. This isn't the right place to have long discussions about English grammar. Let's decide on a form of words that we are both happy with. I suggest: "His greatest strength was in Classics; his poorest subject was Mathematics". JH (talk page) 19:15, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uhh, I found this: "with my poorest subject being". Sorry to be pedantic, and all that. :)--andreasegde (talk) 19:17, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But there's no semi-colon! In any case it wouldn't prove anything, as there are countless examples of poor grammar on the web. JH (talk page) 19:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit conflict here... Anyway, I'd go with both, but isn't "his poorest subject being Mathematics" a bit more fluid?--andreasegde (talk) 19:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the semi-colon article on Wikipedia, and what it says about the use of the semi-colon in English, you will see that the uasage that we are talking about is "Between closely related independent clauses not conjoined with a coordinating conjunction". (It can also be used to separate items in a list.) In turn, an independent clause is defined as "a clause that can stand by itself, also known as a simple sentence. An independent clause contains a subject and a predicate; it makes sense by itself." JH (talk page) 19:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think I should go and find some references for Mr Fry, as the article needs a lot. Thanks for the chat, BTW. :)--andreasegde (talk) 19:21, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea about finding references. And you're welcome regarding the chat. :) JH (talk page) 19:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry about this. I made a mistake, for some reason I thought it didn't link to the horse. Thanks for pointing it out. Edwarddutton (talk) 20:58, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind words; it seems fairly quiet so far from a vandalism and controversy viewpoint. No-one complaining about too much cricket on the main page. Yet. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:56, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I think that the Essex thing should be left out of the main article. In my "perfect" version (sitting happily in my head!) of the Hobbs article, the actual playing career section will be relatively light on detail, and the main "meat" will be in the sub-articles (which I really must do a good lead for and push into mainspace: they are here and here and are just taken from the longest version of the article before I started pruning. Feel free to do stuff to them before they go "live" in the next few days. Or weeks. Or months... They both need a lead and maybe a brief summary of the rest of his career). So I think Essex belongs there. I'm going to keep hammering away at Hobbs, and if I can get it to around 8,000-9,000 words, I'll start on the technique and analysis sections and the "to-do" lists. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:58, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've stuck Early life of Jack Hobbs into article space and bunged a lead of sorts on it. Will hopefully do the other one this week as well. Feel free to tinker with any of these. And I'm almost ready to start adding more to the main Hobbs article on technique, etc. If I'm not distracted by anything else first! Sarastro1 (talk) 22:30, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another update: Later cricket career of Jack Hobbs now in mainspace, and I've added quite a bit on his style and technique to the main article. Still a bit more to do, but getting close to nominating for GA review as the next step; then I might let it rest for a while longer. We also need to find some images; the ones which Blackjack uploaded may unfortunately not meet the rather fussy and precise requirements for inclusion on the site. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:30, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Last update for now; I think I've crammed in just about everything that needs to be there, if briefly, except the amateur/professional stuff. It still needs quite a bit of work, another trim and copy-edit (the lead, in particular, is not good) and a few more pieces including. But I think it's good enough for GA, so I've nominated it and we'll see what happens. I found some really good images which are indisputably public domain. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:07, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd forgotten the six giants thing, thanks. Sarastro1 (talk) 09:53, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Frankel (horse), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ribot (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:10, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello JH,

I'm currently trying to drive :fr:enchaînement (our own follow-on) to GA. (I chose to expand this article because the rule is quite easy to understand, even for the 99.94% of French-speaking people that know barely anything about cricket, and it is a good introduction to the role of the capitain, spiced up with a bit of controversy in its history)

One of the reviewers asked if I have a bit more information about the reactions to the incident involving Jackson during the varsity match. Birley (A Social History...) says that it "caused fierce argument" and Brodribb (Next Man In...) writes that it was "much discussed". Both stops there, they don't provide any details about the reaction from the public, press, or MCC (apart from the slight modification in the rule)... That's quite a short run from them! I cannot find anything in The Willow Wand and in Major's More Than A Game, so I'm a bit stumped...

Do Gibson writes anything about the incident?

Thank you in advance !

OrangeKnight (talk) 08:03, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! That's very kind! Well, that's interesting to see that it may have cost him England's captaincy for a while. OrangeKnight (talk) 10:31, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good point! That should even have helped him! OrangeKnight (talk) 10:46, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jhall1/archive Jul,09-Dec,12. You have been invited to join WikiProject Surrey, a WikiProject dedicated to improving Surrey-related articles on Wikipedia. You received this invitation due to your interest in, or edits within the scope of the project. You may wish to visit the: Article guidelines, for help with writing surrey related articles. Article Requests Department, to help clear the list of requested new surrey related articles or to add new requests. Assessment Department, to help out with assessing articles for the project or to request an article be assessed by another editor. If you plan to contribute to the project please add yourself to the list of project members. You may also like to add {{User WikiProject Surrey}} to your userpage. Adam37 (talk) 10:46, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Become a member and assessor of the Wikiproject:Surrey - we thank you for your demonstrated high scholarly standards and would welcome assistance with any areas of the project in which you may have an interest.

Thank you for your support and your kind words. I suspect that the process is actually correct, and that raising it at the cricket noticeboard would only confirm that – however irritating for ordinary mortals such as ourselves – and might place some of our friendly local admins in some difficulty. There was fleetingly another contribution at ANI this afternoon which was much less friendly towards me, but it was later removed for sockpuppetry(!). The really daft (small "d") thing is that, though those particular contributions on my talkpage have disappeared entirely, others from the same source making exactly the same point remain in various other places on WP simply by scrolling back through page histories. I do hope, by the way, that my replying here doesn't taint you with the charge of "consorting with trolls". Johnlp (talk) 22:01, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there are too many discussions that have disappeared from my page: I've been very quiet in recent months and busy on other things (still am: working at this time on a Sunday...) The original posting that was complained of dated from mid April and had sat there demurely ever since. Johnlp (talk) 22:17, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't have time for this site any more except that I will take action wherever I see the banned editor at large. Please bear in mind that he was banned for very good reasons vis-à-vis merely being blocked. I suggest you also take fully on board User:Black Kite's view of the matter as he is one of the best admins I have come across, speaking from previous experience. Anyway, I want to answer this valid concern you raised on my talk page:

I imagine that he restored the material that you had deleted because he did not think it right that you should be deleting material on his talk page without at least discussing it with him first.

That comment is fair enough as you don't know the full story. I suggest you ask Johnlp about e-mail correspondence between him and me which, it would seem, he has failed to mention to you despite you having raised your prior notice concern in more than one post recently. He is fully aware of my views about insulting WP:PA posts being held on his talk page and he is fully aware that I have been extremely tolerant of and patient with his views, notwithstanding the fact that I did not use the site at all for three months till last week and had actually forgotten the matter until I came back and immediately spotted vandalism of an AA article by the usual suspect. I subsequently found numerous other examples, the majority already dealt with by TRM who evidently agrees with me about the sickness of the banned editor. The least Johnlp could have done was shift that stuff into his archive to get it out of public view but he just left it there despite Dweller having once tried to delete it and knowing my views about it. His attitude is hardly helping the site to fight trolls and shows a serious disrespect towards two other editors, one of whom seems to have left the site in apparent disgust after being harrassed.

Okay? ----Jack | ^{talk page} 13:49, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As you say, I don't know what email correspondence the two of you may have had. I think the best thing now is to try to put the matter behind us. JH (talk page) 21:22, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just look at what old lanky has edited and the form of words. He did the same with Jim Hardie and his numerous other identities. He's off his chump mate — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.144.228.17 (talk) 21:52, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I don't believe that either Jim Hardie or Old Lanky are BlackJack. JH (talk page) 22:04, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

five mins looking at the edit history (and a plagiarising piece of softwear I have access too) show there is no doubt whatsoever. Jim H scored 95.7 against Blackjack. At our Uni he'd be in front of an academic board. I'll check Lanky when I return to work but really there is no need. I am astonished that a person of clear intelligence cannot see what my academic board colleagues would smell out without their software

Frankly I don't care who an editor is, if their edits to articles appear to be accurate and constructive. I find it rather ironic that you seem to be as obsessed with identifying possible aliases of BlackJack as he was with identifying aliases of Richard Daft. JH (talk page) 18:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]